MIND IS MUCH MORE THAN PSYCHOLOGY
Mind is much more than psychology. Do you agree?
You can know something about psychology because - and only
because - of your mind, spirit, or ghost (or however you want to
call it in English), but never because of your psyche, soul, or
The mind is the main source for the usage of the brain. Mind and
brain have an interdependent relationship to each other. The mind
is a cultural phenomenon, and the brain is a natural phenomenon.
The brain and the mind are both because there is this interdependent
relationship I mentioned. The brain does its job in
a natural way, and the mind does its job in a cultural
Behaviour or behaviourism is a realm of biology, also called biology
Also: What does it mean when rivers and lakes are always present
The answer has to do with the mind but notat least not necessarily
Some possible answers:
1) The person with such a dream has much to do with rivers and lakes.
And that's all.
2) The person with such a dream lacks the element water.
It is associated with the qualities of emotion and intuition.
3) The person with such a dream can move very well (perhaps too
4) The person with such a dream is not able to move (and wants to
solve this problem).
4) The person with such a dream is very much (perhaps too much)
interested in development, espcially in a flowing or fluvial development.
6) The person with such a dream hates development, especially a
flowing or fluvial development (and wants to solve this problem).
n) The person with such a dream wants to kill his father and to
marry his mother.
I think that the main function of dreams is to to destress the
(brain of) living beings, especially human beings; so that they
help them to get along with stressful or other complicated experiences.
We ourselves can solve most of our problems and do it in many various
ways. We do not need any Freud, Freudian, Freudianist, or other
preachers. Most children grow up without any negative results of
problems, because they solve their problems themselves and with
the help of their parents and other relatives. If the revers were
true, then there would be more problematic children or more so-called
experts who design problematic children. And indeed:
since we have so-called experts the problematic children
have been becoming more and more. So-called experts
design problems and problematic humans, and I know the reason behind
it. For the same reason we also do not need any Marx, Marxian, Marxist,
or other preachers. If you start to consult a so-called expert,
then you start the misuse.
In most cases, a person gets more problems than this person had
before the careful analysis you mentioned (**).
Such cases are not or mostly not published, because publishing such
cases is forbidden or at least a taboo.
In the Land of Lies war is peace, ideality is
reality, dreams are non-dreams, deseases
are cures, ..., and so on.
Would you agree, if I said that language can damage people? You
do not need medicines or drugs in order to become damaged, if you
have a language. Language is as effective as or even more effective
than medicines and drugs are. The effect of language is a lengthy
one, is awful long. Therefore it is very suitable when it comes
to influence anyone and everyone, each person and a whole society.
Look into societies where is no psycho-market (for example
in Amazonia or other non-urban regions) - the people of this societies
have almost no problems, because they are not damaged by the psycho-market,
the socio-market, and other hyper-modern markets
nobody needs. This markets indicate the modern civilisation
and its abnormality. Civilisations as urban societies yield such
markets which market the abnormality. So
again: The Occidental culture in its modern or civilised forms designs,
constructs, produces patients in order to market them,
because there is no other possibility anymore to control them. The
main effect of that is a society of damaged people, of patients.
Patients are made. Therefore some psychiatrists imitated
lawyers by calling their patients clients.
I mean that people who are normal become abnormal because of the
psycho-market, the interests of those who become rich
and powerful, because they really make patients, problematic
humans ... - as I said before. This finding is a historical fact!
But note: We are not only talking about psychiatry but about
the whole psycho-market.
Augustinus is right: Prosperity inevitably leads to depravity.
Repetitions or recurrences belong to development like cycles or
spiral cycles to change in general. That's fundamental.
So the question is whether repetitions or recurrences can really
be caused by a fix or based ... on such ... types
of dream content. If you have a pain and a dream and think
they depend on each other, then it is probably not in that way that
your dream is the cause of your pain and the repetition or recurrence
of your dream and pain, but in that way that your pain causes your
dream, and both are under the control of repetition
or recurrence. If you try to delete repetition or recurrence, you
will fail, because you can not delete them as such, but you can
i.e. change negative repetitions or recurrences into
positive repetitions or recurrences by changing your
actions and thoughts. Try to change your actions and thoughts, so
that your dream contents can also change. In that case, a tiny part
of your development changes, what means that the repetitions or
recurrences also change.
What has really become new since the modern Occidental times
is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the
enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result
- the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**).
Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time
the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all
humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction
of the number of the humans.
Hedonism leads i.a. to the conclusion that we should just believe
whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe.
The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible
to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the
death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against
it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does
not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will
never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore
it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what
in former days was called psyche, soul;
but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to
psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system),
part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical,
mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.
The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the
consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much
As long as we humans do not know whether the consciousness is dependent
or independent, we can say that the consciousness is partly independent
or partly dependent but not that it is absolutely independent or
absoluetly dependent - similar to the will as a relatively free
will or relatively unfree will.
The problem is that people often think that dream contents are
problems, but they are not, because the brain tries to solve problems
which have been experienced in the past - how near or far this past
may ever be - for the (plaesure of the) person('s life) it belongs
to. A brain has to neurologically save the person('s life) it belongs
to. That does not mean that dream contents are not interesting or
have nothing to do with reality, but the Interpretations of dream
contents are less or even not part of any problem solution but more
part of the problem or even the problem itself. So you would have
a new dream content in order to solve the interpretation of your
last dream content ..., and so on ..., if you believed (too much)
in the solution of interpretations of dream contents, so that this
belief can become a new religion.
The modern religion is something like an ideology, and the modern
deities are idols, false gods, for example such as dream interpreters
or therapists (both formerly known as shamans). So a modern areligious
person would have to be one who has nothing to do with this modern
religion, because this modern religion is also a modern kind of
Dream contents themselves are no problem, but they can lead to
problems, if the interpretations of dream contensts are the problem.
One should nevertheless talk about dreams but not in the sense
that they are expected to do wonders. Brains do wonders! They are
neurological, thus biological.
Maybe that a more neutral statement can come again from Goethe:
Man suche nur nichts hinter den Phänomenen;
sie selbst sind die Lehre.
Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelms Meisterjahre, 1821-1829,
I say that we should defend our own interpretations of our dream
contents, because I am for freedom and against any dictatorship,
also and especially against the dictatorship of so-called experts.
You interpret your dream contents, don't you? Andf if you tell
your dream contents to others, they begin to interpret your dream
contents as well, don't they? And if you tell your dream contents
to so-called experts, they begin to interpret your dream
contents too, don't they? This implies that there are many interpretations
possible and nearly always also present. But which interpretation
is true? Probably no one. There is no real expert system
which can legitimately say: This (thus: no other!) interpretation
is true. We all interpret our dreams, and we should do it
(of course!), but we are not able to find out what the truth of
these dream contents are. Interpretations and concepts like unconscious
or subconscious are as much arbitrary as other interpretations
and concepts. You can go through all of them, and you
will not find any of them being really better or more
true than the others. People in New Guinea also interpret
dream contents, and their interpretations are very good, perhaps
better than the interpretations of the so-called experts
in Europe, USA, Canada, ..., but we do not know and we do not have
to know whether they are more true or not. So what?
It's no problem at all.
1) If a man dreams to kill his father or to sleep with his mother,
then he has not necessarily a problem, e.g. an Oedipus
complex. The Oedipus complex is an absolutely
arbitrary interpretattion, but it is as much believed as the resurrection
of Jesus Christ was.
2) If a woman dreams of e.g. a strong lion or baer, or of a big
tower, then she has not necessarily a problem, e.g.
a penis envy. The penis envy is also an
absolutely arbitrary interpretattion, and it is not as much believed
as the resurrection of Jesus Christ was, because the feminism, another
absolutely arbitrary interpretation, forbids it.
Firstly, we are talking about interpretations of dream contents
and not about psychonalysis (the psychoanalysis has not and
should never have an interpretation monopole!)
Secondly, the fact that people had no or at least less problems
with dream contents in former days shows that problems are made
in order to manage them, to control people, to become rich and thus
powerful, or to remain rich and thus powerful. One can not always
seperate the psycho-market and the psycho-communism from other living
forms (especially from human beings!) in order to excuse the existence
of the the psycho-market and the psycho-communism and, if wanted,
put them together also in order to excuse the existence of the the
psycho-market and the psycho-communism. One has to accept and especially
to respect the life of each human.
Thirdly, most people solve their problems by themselves and do
not need any help; but the more problems so-called experts
create the more probelamtic people exist and want to be helped,
thus the psycho-market and psycho-communism can grow and grow with
the made problems.
There are many interpretations which are more correct than the
pschoanalytic interpretations. And the Oedipus complex
and most other psychoanalytic interpretations are nonsense. Do you
believe in that? Nothing can be verified or falsified - it is just
arbitrariness, and nearly all of it depends on the belief, faith,
trust and the marketing and propaganda. Greek mythology
and psycho... - that fits, because nothing of the two is really
concrete. Don't get me wrong, because I am not saying that psychoanalyisis
is not interesting, I am saying that psychoanalyisis is a false
theory, a false theology.
An analysis is deemed to be problematic because that psychoanalysis
is false and thus problematic.
The psychoanalysis may be an interesting kind of nihilistic philosophy,
but it should not directly have anything to do with personal lives.
One of the main problems is that the psychoanalysis has a strong
hierarchy with Freud as the godfather of psychoanalysis
... and so on ... and seems to literally dictate what and who neurotic
is. Every male has an Oedipus complex and every woman
has an Electra complex, and if they say that they do
not have such complexes, then they are told that they
are defending, their defense mechanism is
revolting against the godfather of psychoanalysis. That
I am against dictatorship!
Should each adult person become a childlike person
or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo
erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?
Of course: No.
Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie
mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie
anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf
unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts
der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten
eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird
nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die
Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich
nahezu Synonyme waren. - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum
des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms
of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of
the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome
neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the
foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between
most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have
forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy«
were traditionally almost synonymous. - Peter Sloterdijk,
The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.
The brain is a part of the body, scintifically spoken: a part of
biology, especially neurology. Brain is not mind, and both are not
psyche. Brain is scientifically accessible, but psyche and mind
are scientifically not accessible, because they are scientifically
not objectifiable. So psychology is not a scientifical discipline.
Psychology has no scientifical object. It can merely be a part of
Nobody knows what psyche really is. That is the reason why it is
used for everything. It is no thing (=> no-thing
=> nothing), and if no thing is used for everything,
then you can be sure that that can never be a real scientifical
object and that those people who use it in that way are charlatans,
quacks, quacksalvers, and so on.
I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well
defined. Psyche is no scientific object.
It is not debatable. And my text is no critique.
No one can say what psyche really is.
The scientific object of physics is nature with its
bodies. There is no doubt about it. The word physics
is derived from the Greek word physika which means nature.
It is well known what nature and its bodies
If you know what psyche really is, then you would be
God or one of the Godwannabes who claim to know what it is, although
they do not know what it is. The word psyche
has always been an abstraction, a philosophical or/and religious
term without any concrete meaning, without any material aspect;
so psyche is merely an abstraction like a whiff (puff or tang),
thus no thing, no-thing, nothing.
The feelings and the thoughts are not what
psyche means. The feelings are feelings,
the thoughts are thoughts, and the psyche
is psyche. Why are you so stubborn when it comes to accept what
words, terms, and concepts mean? The natural base for thoughts is
the brain, and the brain science is called neurology which is a
part of biology. We know what that means. It has nothing to do with
psychology. The natural base for feelings is also the natural living
body, and the science of the natural living body is biology. We
know what that means. It has nothing to do with psychology. What
you are saying about feelings and thoughts
is hocus-pocus when it comes to bring them in a discipline which
they definitely do not belong to.
They invent, invent, and invent
more and more stuff (mental illness is merely
one of that nonsense stuff) in order to control more and more humans,
at last 99% of all humans (before all humans will be replaced by
The spirit is very much more connected with the processing of the
informations in the brain, whereas the soul (originally it was the
correct English translation for the Ancient Greek word psyche)
is more connected with the Platonic, the Platonico-Christian realm
(heaven as the Christian example).
I believe the psyche is not much more than the soul. Mind is much
more than psychology. Both mind and body have not much to do with
psyche and psychology. But soul has much to do with psyche and psychology.
Concepts do not change, if they are true - that means: logically
true, correctly defined, logically correct. But if they are not
true, then they change - mostly just after the changing of the power
relations. Currently there are many untrue concepts.
Modern psychology - a joke? (**).
One can call it a joke, yes, but unfortunately it is
a serious joke, so that one should say: it is
a part of a typical modern problem.
Psychological underpinnings are fairly new, and if philosophy
is a joke, surely, psychology is too. But, if it is, then the joke
is too recent, as well, and no one is lauhing, (yet), and if they
do, it usually assumed, that the last laugh is on them. And no one
really wants that.
Modern psychology is merely useless, if it is as it was: a subdiscipline
of philosophy and not more.
The chemical industry and other industries want to sell their products.
First they selled them only on physicians, then they started to sell
them also on psychyatrists or even psychologists. And the next step
is already achieved, isn't it? If yes: what will be the after next
There are many information memories.
Concerning (1) nature: in all things
of the universe, thus in everything that exists, thus also in brains.
Concerning (2) human culture: (2,1)
in brains again; (2,2) in libraries;
(2,3) in machines, thus also in computers,
robotors, and so on.
That is really a huge problem: Mental illnesses are fabriacted
in an industrial complex of mentally ill brains.
Psychiatry as an arm of the state, and the state as an arm of the
multinational corporations and banks.
If there is a dichotomy of consciousness and unconsciousness, and
if there is a subconsciousness too, then there must be a dichotomy
of superconsciousness and subconsciousness too.
I have been told that subconsciousness is not like unconsciousness.
According to that subconsciousness must be between consciousness
It is clear, that, if there is consciousness, then there must be
also unconsciousness (I know, in English there is only the adjective
unconscious but not the noun unconsciousness).
But if there is also something that is both not conscious and not
unconscious, then it can be said that it is pre-conscious
or just subconscious. And if there is something pre-conscious or
subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious
or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as
unequal as post-conscious and superconscious). This gedankenexperiment
should be followed by discussion.
Let's have a little bit philosophical anatomy and neurology:
Let's say we have (1) a cerebral instinct, thus an instinct brain,
(2) a cerebellum, thus a kleinhirn, (3), cerebral emotions, thus
an emotion brain, and (4) a cerebral reason, thus a reason brain.
Now look at this picture and read the text below it:
1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.
Now, neurologically and psychoanalytically, Freud would perhaps
say that the instinct brain is neurologically what the Es
(English: Id) and das Unbewußte (English:
the unconscious) psychoanalytically is, that the reason
brain is what the Ich (in English: I, egoself)
and das Bewußte (English: the conscious)
psychoanalytically is. But with what would he correlate the Über-Ich
(English: superego, high self)? Probably
with the reason brain too. But it is something like das Überbewußte
(English: the superconscious [my invention]). The supersonsciousness
is the group- brain-as-it-is-stray-represented-in-each-individual-reason-brain,
especially the moral system of a group (couple, family, tribe, folk,
people, nation, culture ... and so on). And the subconsciousness
is the brain-as-the-stray-parts-between-the-instinctive-brain-and-the-reason-brain.
According to logic and linguistics, there must also be the prefix
post (cf. for example posthuman), if there
is the prefix pre (cf. for example prehuman),
and there must also be the prefix super- (cf. for example
superordination), if there is the prefix sub-
(cf. for example subordination). It is a question of word
meaning or concept definition. For example: the term a posteriori
is the semantic, especially temporal, and thus also conceptual opposite
of the term a priori, and the term superconscious
is the semantic and thus also conceptual opposite of the term subconscious.
And even if science does not prove or disprove this empirically,
then there nevertheless remains the theoretical possibility of it.
So the superconsciousness as the opposite of the subconsciousness
is what is beyond the consciousness, whereas the consciousness
itself is beyond the subconsciousness which is beyond
the unconsciousness. If we believe in an area between
the consciousness and the unconsciousness,
then we can also believe that the consciousness is an
area between the subconsciousness and the superconsciousness.
I would even say that the word consciousness stems from
a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got
lost, and my concept of superconsciousness is an attempt
of memory, of bringing it back into use.
The superconsciousness is comparable with a godhood that is coming
from outside and inside of us. Now, the anti-religious and anti-theistic
humans will say: This is the same old religion . I do
not care. Religion does not disappear by forbidding the word religion.
We can call it spiritual training too. It does not matter
at all. At least as long as our brains will work in this way, the
phenomenon and the corresponding behavior as a whole will not disappear.
Imagine there is no metaphysics and no physics anymore, because
both are indirectly forbidden by the government. There is merely
something like a socialpsychological religion which is called science.
Pure existence and its analysis (compare: Dasein and
Daseinsanalyse - Martin Heidegger) is the better ane
more useful and more successful, way than psychoanalysis.
Psychiatry is also a system of religion and belief in god(s).
But does the word rationalization not also have a positive
meaning? I know, the psychologization has changed the meaning of
the word rationalization, but the word had a different
meaning before that psychologization. I prefer the non-psychologized
meaning of the word rationalization. Or is this not
any longer possible in English? Am I now not welcomed
to the psycholgism club?
Political correctness, psychologism and sociologism, for example,
Consciousness is the immediately findable total content
of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.
The teem immediately findable total content
means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience
can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others.
Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some
parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.
I did not say is found but can be found
or is immediately findable, namely by the owner of the
consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important,
because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately
find the spiritual and emotional content.
Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness
is part of the brain.
1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.
The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain
(light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in
the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).
But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically,
we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.
One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it
depends on the so-called point of view.
Who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself,
then the next question comes immediately: Why is it not the subject
in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint.
If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness
itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it
can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in
an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the
consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.